<quoted text>Why stop there? Perhaps we're living in an ant farm as entertainment for our "god" who lives in a bigger ant farm as entertainment for a bigger "god" who lives in an ant farm as entertainment for an even bigger "god"....

<quoted text>you are clearly on the wrong side of history, as most young people(like myself) veiw this as a civil rights issue, not a moral one, as you do.

I doubt that history will judge him as the person who was "in the wrong." That would apply for World leaders not normal citizens. I didn't vote for the great Oblama, am I on the wrong side of history? Most likely I won't care if a history book writes that I didn't vote for him. Is Obama on the wrong side of history about fast and furious or Benghazi? Or his drone attacks on American citizens?

YES? So you claim that the provision set forth by Article II sec 1 of the constitution preventing a naturalized citizen from becoming President is unconstitutional because of the 14th Amendment? You really are an idiot.

<quoted text>You say, "Gays are a direct defect of mating behavior. Hence, they do not 'equate' to marriage at the fundamental level."If that is true then:"Infertile couples are a direct defect of mating behavior. Hence, they do not 'equate' to marriage at the fundamental level.""Elderly couples who are incapable of reproducing or have no desire to reproduce are a direct defect of mating behavior. Hence, they do not 'equate' to marriage at the fundamental level.""Any couple who is unwilling or unable to reproduce is a direct defect of mating behavior. Hence, they do not 'equate' to marriage at the fundamental level."Maybe it's you have an epigenetic related inability to understand how children and marriage are not always tied to one another.

Well VV, at least you shifted from your ad homoan attacks back to silly stupid logic.

You attempt to equate a direct, absolute desolate sterility to those rare heterosexual genetic or accidental exceptions.

Or even sillier, the consequence of age! I suppose you expect married couples to get divorced when they can no longer procreate too?

But the stupidest 'reasoning' is a couple who is fully capable of mutual procreation, choosing not to (for the time being, an option that usually changes) with a ss couple who is absolutely mutually desolate.

By your reasoning, any relationship qualifies for marriage. Moreover, marriage is so dumbed down, we might as well eliminate the term as meaningless.

The bottom line is that my analogy already exposed the silliness of your claim.

The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;

An apple tree bearing fruit.An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.

Even funnier?

The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!

KiMare wrote:<quoted text>1. Of course it doesn't have to be. The law determined that faithfulness to a mate was unnecessary with no-fault divorce. Now we have horrendous consequences of domestic violence and child abuse. Not to mention a devastating drop in every area of the social health of children of divorce.Now there is a silly and stupid attempt to dumb down marriage to a friendship of any gender, totally denying the part of children. Any sensible person would say the law will be two for two if that happens.2. That would be like the law requiring sex or children or any other such silly demands.Here is an analogy that exposes that idiocy;The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;An apple tree bearing fruit.An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.Even funnier?The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!Smile.<quoted text>A perfect example of a gay troll attack.Look, not ONE reasoned response to a single point of reality.Pure ad homoan attacks of my person.Do you really think this helps your cause?Snicker.

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text>You want to talk about no-fault divorce? Start your own forum here on Topix. This one is about same-gender marriage.Children are to all marriages, as sheep are to all farmers.(not all farmers raise sheep).I still don't understand your analogy with apples and walnuts. It's absurd. Just another one of your failed attempts to be clever.I only troll the troll. It seems to be the primary language you understand.

No-fault divorce is an example of how past legislating the terms of marriage had devastating effects. It relates directly to this debate. You have no defense so you want to censor it.

Well look at that, you are trying an analogy!!!

Here is an example of exposing an analogy as absurd, something you still have not been able to do;

Second, all farmers (marriage) produce something. Whether it is sheep or something else is irrelevant. Sometimes farmers get too old (they still are identified as farmers). Some have farms, but don't produce for the time being. Others are injured and can no longer produce. But someone who can never, under any conditions produce is NEVER called a farmer.

See how simple that is?

The simple truth is, you troll because you have no character or logic to defend your denial.

<quoted text>Well VV, at least you shifted from your ad homoan attacks back to silly stupid logic.You attempt to equate a direct, absolute desolate sterility to those rare heterosexual genetic or accidental exceptions.Or even sillier, the consequence of age! I suppose you expect married couples to get divorced when they can no longer procreate too?But the stupidest 'reasoning' is a couple who is fully capable of mutual procreation, choosing not to (for the time being, an option that usually changes) with a ss couple who is absolutely mutually desolate.By your reasoning, any relationship qualifies for marriage. Moreover, marriage is so dumbed down, we might as well eliminate the term as meaningless.The bottom line is that my analogy already exposed the silliness of your claim.The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;An apple tree bearing fruit.An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.Even funnier?The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!Smirk.

Using your logic, an incestuous marriage should be legal because it can produce offspring. So can plural marriages. So can a marriage between a 50 year old man and a 13 year old girl.

But, hey, you're the one who keeps claiming that any couples who do not reproduce "are a direct defect of mating behavior. Hence, they do not 'equate' to marriage at the fundamental level."

Your words, not mine...

And I will not respond to your apple tree/walnut tree crap until you can make your point clear. Is the non-producing apple tree supposed to represent something? Is the non-producing walnut tree supposed to represent something? Is the walnut tree that ridiculously walks about gathering apples to hang on its branches supposed to represent something?

You're going to have to have to step outside of your asinine analogy and explain it to the rest of us.

You realize that if no on understands your analogy, it doesn't make you a genius don't you? It just means you suck at analogies.

<quoted text>You can't come up with an argument against what I say, so you accuse me of attacking you.Girl, you'll know when I'm attacking you.I'm still rubbing the sleep out of my eyes. Haven't even had a cup of coffee.I'm hardly in attack mode.You'll know I've attacked you when you have to go into therapy to deal with the PTSD you'll encounter from a REAL attack by me.To put it another way, I don't attack you. I hold back. I hold WAY back.Stop frettin' Miss Thing. You don't got nothin' to worry about from this old queen.

VV, you are so silly. You have been attacking me for three years.

All I've ever experienced is foul gas from a limp wristed gay twirl having a hissy fit.

KiMare wrote:<quoted text>1. Of course it doesn't have to be. The law determined that faithfulness to a mate was unnecessary with no-fault divorce. Now we have horrendous consequences of domestic violence and child abuse. Not to mention a devastating drop in every area of the social health of children of divorce.Now there is a silly and stupid attempt to dumb down marriage to a friendship of any gender, totally denying the part of children. Any sensible person would say the law will be two for two if that happens.2. That would be like the law requiring sex or children or any other such silly demands.Here is an analogy that exposes that idiocy;The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;An apple tree bearing fruit.An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.Even funnier?The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!Smile.<quoted text>A perfect example of a gay troll attack.Look, not ONE reasoned response to a single point of reality.Pure ad homoan attacks of my person.Do you really think this helps your cause?Snicker.<quoted text>No-fault divorce is an example of how past legislating the terms of marriage had devastating effects. It relates directly to this debate. You have no defense so you want to censor it.Well look at that, you are trying an analogy!!!Here is an example of exposing an analogy as absurd, something you still have not been able to do;First, your analogy ignores the basic essence of marriage; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. That immediately disqualifies your analogy as incongruent.Second, all farmers (marriage) produce something. Whether it is sheep or something else is irrelevant. Sometimes farmers get too old (they still are identified as farmers). Some have farms, but don't produce for the time being. Others are injured and can no longer produce. But someone who can never, under any conditions produce is NEVER called a farmer.See how simple that is?The simple truth is, you troll because you have no character or logic to defend your denial.Smile.

My dear, we're not fighting to call ourselves "parents". We're fighting to call ourselves "married". You're the only idiot who keeps insisting that in order for a couple to call themselves "married" they must be capable of being called "parent".

Again, I will challenge you to show me one marriage certificate or license that includes the word "parent" or "child". Name one jurisdiction in this country that mandates all married couples to produce offspring.

And yet hundreds of thousands of people marry one another who will not, for whatever reason, produce a child. They are no less married than those that do have children.

Sad part is Iím sure she thinks sheís right. Reality is she doesnít have the smarts or qualifications to take scientific theory and present it as fact. Additionally, repeating the same baseless claims ad nauseum doesnít make them true.

<quoted text>YES? So you claim that the provision set forth by Article II sec 1 of the constitution preventing a naturalized citizen from becoming President is unconstitutional because of the 14th Amendment? You really are an idiot.

Youíre such a dummy. You really do have reading for comprehension issues donít you? I do not believe it is discriminatory to exclude non-natural born citizens from running for POTUS. Which is what I said, and you somehow comprehended the opposite. Furthermore, I do believe this parallel to be a red herring argument. Youíll get no further responses from me on the subject. And yes you are a bigot.

You're the only idiot who keeps insisting that in order for a couple to call themselves "married" they must be capable of being called "parent".Again, I will challenge you to show me one marriage certificate or license that includes the word "parent" or "child". Name one jurisdiction in this country that mandates all married couples to produce offspring.

There isn't, nor need to be. Husband and wife covers it all. Its about men and women, not men and men, or women and women.

And yet hundreds of thousands of people marry one another who will not, for whatever reason, produce a child. They are no less married than those that do have children.

Why they marry doesn't change why marriage exists in the first place. Marriage didn't develop as a means of addressing the same sex, male or female, sexual relationship. That's why there's no compelling state interest in a SSR.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.